Pre-deposit stay modification requires proved hardship or a materially relevant later decision; neither was established here.

A stay order directing pre-deposit may be modified only on limited grounds, such as proved financial hardship or a later decision materially affecting the prima facie case; neither was shown here. The applicant's balance sheet and accounts did not establish acute inability to comply, so financial hardship was not made out. The plea of breach of natural justice also failed because the adjudication followed show cause notice, reply, personal hearing, and written submissions, and the order was not non-speaking. Questions on the brand name or trade name issue, the effect of Explanation IX to the exemption notification, and the cited rulings required full appellate adjudication and could not be conclusively reopened at the stay stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the stay order directing pre-deposit should be modified or waived on the grounds of financial hardship, alleged violation of natural justice, and reliance on a later decision concerning the meaning of brand name or trade name under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The application was confined to modification of the stay order, and not a review of the merits. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established sufficient financial hardship to justify interference with the pre-deposit direction, since the balance sheet and accounts did not show such acute inability to comply. The plea of breach of natural justice was rejected because the adjudication had proceeded after show cause notice, reply, personal hearing, and consideration of written submissions, and the impugned order was not non-speaking. The later decision relied upon was held not to govern the present matter at the stay stage because the substantive questions on the nature of the logo or mark, the effect of Explanation IX to the exemption notification, and the applicability of the cited rulings required full adjudication in appeal. For modification of stay, only a prima facie case and limited grounds such as hardship could be examined, and no sufficient basis was shown.

Conclusion: The request for modification of the stay order was not justified and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A stay order may be modified only on limited grounds such as proved financial hardship or a later decision materially affecting the prima facie case, and issues requiring full merits adjudication cannot be conclusively reopened at the stay stage.

---